Crypto Ruling: Did They Just Declare Coins…Not Money? 🤯

The structure of Finder Earn…a most peculiar arrangement, leading the Court to declare stablecoins, bless their digital hearts, are not ‘money’ in the eyes of the law.
The boundary of crypto asset regulation…finally, a line in the sand! Or perhaps, a line drawn in the ephemeral sands of the internet?
A major catalyst for fintech companies… meaning more schemes for eager investors, no doubt. A veritable blossoming of financial contrivances!

By order of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), in their endless quest to make sense of the modern age, the Federal Court of Australia has seen fit to agree with that enterprising lot at Finder.com. Their crypto yield product, Finder Earn, is, according to this ruling, not a financial product under Australian law. Good heavens!

Previously, the Court, in a display of intellectual gymnastics, determined that Finder Earn – a system allowing citizens to trade perfectly respectable Australian dollars for these… *stablecoins*, and reap a return of 4-6% per annum – did not resemble a debenture or any other such financial contrivance requiring a license. This decision concludes a most tiresome, nearly three-year legal dispute concerning the regulation of these crypto yield programs. Three years, wasted on such novelties! 🙄

A Ruling to Reshape Crypto Regulation, or Merely Confuse It Further?

Finder Earn, a fleeting project operating between February and November 2022, permitted customers to exchange their hard-earned Australian dollars for TrueAUD stablecoins, depositing these in the Finder Wallet platform in exchange for, shall we say, *yield payments*. TrueAUD, tethered to the Australian dollar at a 1:1 ratio, was deemed by the Federal Court to be a cryptocurrency and therefore… property. Not money, mind you, merely property! Transactions were thus not considered deposits or loans, as outlined in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Imagine!

The judges, in their infinite wisdom, stressed that the interaction of customers involved not the *lending* of money – a most respectable act – but the transfer of ownership of a… *fungible intangible asset*. It was declared akin to securities lending, involving the re-delivery of equivalent property, not a simple loan payable in actual, tangible money. The ASIC’s opinion, that Finder Earn produced a debt instrument, was most thoroughly dismissed. Like a fly swatted in the summer sun.

Mr. Fred Schebesta, a spokesperson for Finder.com, declared this ruling a “milestone” in Australian fintech. A milestone, he says! Given the demand for “safe” and “regulated” access to new crypto investment opportunities—such a curious combination of words—he believes it a triumph for fintech overall. He further hinted that Finder Earn was birthed from “transparency and integrity”, whilst also being described as a “regulatory pushback against innovation.” A most contradictory sentiment, wouldn’t you agree? 🧐

Federal Court, in a Fit of Clarity, Rejects Claim of Money Lending

The Court was particularly struck by the fact that clients first invested Australian dollars into their Finder Wallet accounts, then used these funds to acquire these TrueAUD stablecoins. These coins were then sent to Finder Wallet, benefiting the investor, and upon completion of the “Earn Term”, equivalent stablecoins (plus returns!) were credited back to the customer. The Court, with a decisive stroke of the pen, declared that this transfer of cryptocurrencies did not constitute a deposit or loan, but rather a transfer of ownership. Such subtlety!.

Furthermore, customers retained the freedom to engage in other activities—dabbling in different cryptocurrencies, withdrawing funds, or simply letting their Australian dollars rest peacefully within their wallets—without being forced to participate in the Earn product. This “elasticity,” the Court reasoned, contradicted the notion of a single loan or deposit transaction. Quite a compelling argument, if one can wrap one’s brain around it. 🤪

ASIC’s appeal questioned whether the entire sequence should be considered a single arrangement under section 761B of the Corporations Act. The Court, however, dismissed this concern. The transaction—depositing Australian dollars, converting to TrueAUD, and giving stablecoins to Finder—could not reasonably be viewed as a single scheme. The matter came down to the legal distinction between money and property, and the Court was adamant: TrueAUD was *not* money. And there, my friends, lies the rub.

2025-07-26 13:48

A Ruling to Reshape Crypto Regulation, or Merely Confuse It Further?

Federal Court, in a Fit of Clarity, Rejects Claim of Money Lending

Read More